6 Replies

found that the basic functions like snapshots, vols, clones, replication tech etc are same except the naming conventions are different.

i want to know the core features - what makes HNAS better than Vseries, if so its features and vice versa. ( Vseries vs HNAS ).

thanks in advance.

Differences are actually fairly huge. These are two of the least similar scale out SANs.

Hardware. Netapp uses Intel/AMD processors, while HNAS uses FPGA's to run its OS on. HNAS can actually upgrade its hardware as a software upgrade (yes this is confusing).

Target workloads. Netapp is targeted for mixed use, and its WAFL system is aimed at optimizing random write's at the cost of streaming reads (write coalencing at the cost of fragmentation).

BlueARC's metadata caching, and parrallelization of processing makes it the best choice when reading millions of tiny file's is your thing. E-discovery and stuff like fermilab love these things.

Snapshotting.

Netapp uses a write into free space based system so it can store tons of snapshots without using a lot of space. The tradeoff's is being able to mount and write to all of these quickly without having to copy them out. BlueArc uses a COW system that trade's a write overhead for the ability to quickly create and remove snapshots. Netapp uses iNode's to track blocks for its system, if you have millions of tiny file's you can run out and have to add disks even though you have free space if you want performance. if Snapshots and snapshot replication are key to your backup strategy Netapp is the way to go, if snapshots are kept for short usage for data warehousing or replication to OLAP systems Cow is the way to go.

Tiering of data for archive.

HNAS supports stubbing and moving of data to external tiers (like a cheap SAM-SD based on all kinds of triggers, so you can do full ILM without disrupting file access. Netapp can do this but only to another Netapp device. I belive HNAS can tier at a file level between storage tiers and activity. Netapp relys on expanding cache with PAM modules or manual moving of VVOL's between aggregates.

Clustering with global namespace.

HNAS has been doing this for years, Netapp just implemented this with the new cluster mode but even the local SE's are honestly scared of.

I'm getting certified for install/architect on HNAS at the end of April, so I can hopefully speak more to their functions then. I work for an HDS partner so I have obvious bias's but I have clients with Netapp's in the field that I manage/support.

Can I ask what your doing, (workload/purpose/scale/NFS/CIFS) and perhaps I can provide some insight into what might help you more? I know one the local HNAS SE's I can grab for a call if you have any more detailed questions on it. I know HDS does a lot of integration with their object storage management HDI

For compassion on the difference in SiliconFS. Its not impossible for an HNAS to support millions of files in a single folder, or billions within a file system. This is stuff that crunching metadata on a file system that runs on a raw FPGA just does really really well. Even the smallest HNAS they have sold in recent years would scale up to something crazy like 4PB.

our main activity would be to share the files between Unix and Wintel envt

and also home,group shares.

sounds like both will work.

Just out of curiosity what is the SAN you are looking at putting behind these solutions? (Both of these are gateway filers not really designed to hold their own disk shelf's but instead front someone else's SAN).